The development of the “internet of things” (“IoT”) has led to an increasing number of devices capable of connecting to the internet. A modern home, for example, might include internet-capable devices such as a thermostat, refrigerator, television, security camera, door locks, web site portal, and lighting. Some of these devices can collect information and transmit it wirelessly. For example, a smart thermostat can include a sensor that detects the presence of a user, causing the thermostat to adjust based on the presence or absence of the user and transmitting this information to the user's mobile device. As another example, a refrigerator can detect when a food item is running low and either alert the user or order a replacement food item automatically. Regardless of their particular capabilities, these internet-capable devices are referred to herein as “proxy devices.” This term is used for convenience and is not intended to limit the types of devices to which this disclosure applies.
Various types of proxy devices exist, with each proxy device potentially using a different operating system, different application program interfaces, and collecting unique information and performing unique actions based on that information. As a result, each device requires a custom software solution in order to provide a user with control over the device. For example, a user may need to download an application on their mobile device in order to control a single proxy device. If the user owns multiple proxy devices, he or she will probably need to download multiple applications to support these devices. This requirement reduces the user's efficiency and complicates their daily life.
The need for custom software solutions for different proxy devices creates other issues as well. The most apparent of these issues is the lack of interoperability or centralized control. A user cannot simply install various proxy devices and expect them to work together without additional customization. Another issue is an increased cost for proxy devices. A company that manufactures and sells a proxy device will need to dedicate resources to software development, adding to the cost of the product that is eventually sold to customers. Yet another issue is the lack of coordinated security between proxy devices. While a custom software solution for a particular proxy device can include security features, these features may not align with other proxy devices and present the user with a disjointed approach to their personal security.
Existing infrastructure is unable to provide direct management of proxy devices. In the mobile device space, for example, a Mobile Device Management (“MDM”) or Enterprise Mobility Management (“EMM”) system provides the architecture to directly manage mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops. However, proxy devices typically lack the sophistication of a mobile device, rendering them unable to install and run the management software necessary to be managed by an MDM or EMM system. They also may not be capable of connecting to the MDM or EMM system.
As a result, a need exists for an improved management architecture that can reliably manage a disparate group of proxy devices. More specifically, a need exists for a management gateway device that can interface with various proxy devices, repackage commands provided by the management system, and provide understandable instructions to the various types of proxy devices.